952 karma · joined December 19, 2019
For example, try to work out the Taylor series for sin(x) using degrees (or rotations). It's awful.
Are you under the impression that the HRT group was training by only performing 1 RM lifts? That wasn't the case:
> At a commercial gym, HRT performed a supervised full body programme three times per week, with 6–8 weeks of initial habituation. The periodisation programme was machine based and each exercise included 3 sets of 6–12 repetitions at ~70%–85% of 1 RM, which was estimated using the prediction equation according to methods by Brzycki
Meanwhile the moderate group did something very similar, just with more repetitions and less weight:
> 3 sets of 10–18 repetitions at ~50%–60% of 1 RM
I don't see how one is more "realistic" than the other.
I don't mean to speak for the author, but: The 10 seconds it took for the GitHub web UI to load the homepage of this project is a great justification for its existence!
Re caloric density: it's true that fat has more cal/g than carbs or protein. But, people do not eat a fixed mass of food per day -- the satiety of the food they consume influences this. Insulin response also affects weight gain and satiety.
> This article examines how faith in science led physicians and patients to embrace the low-fat diet for heart disease prevention and weight loss. Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media. Many Americans subscribed to the ideology of low fat, even though there was no clear evidence that it prevented heart disease or promoted weight loss. Ironically, in the same decades that the low-fat approach assumed ideological status, Americans in the aggregate were getting fatter, leading to what many called an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, the low-fat ideology had such a hold on Americans that skeptics were dismissed. Only recently has evidence of a paradigm shift begun to surface, first with the challenge of the low-carbohydrate diet and then, with a more moderate approach, reflecting recent scientific knowledge about fats.
So I think it's good that the Wikipedia article emphasizes that the protocol is outdated.
That aside, the fact that it's possible can make a firearm from a pipe, doesn't seem to me to mean that someone should do 5 years in prison... for possibly having touched a pipe... found in a pile of junk.
Either there is more to this or something went seriously wrong here legally
All that aside, what the hell is a pipe gun? What exactly did they find? A length of PVC...
https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/homeless-man-livi...
The hypothetical that I'm working with is that the insurer can perfectly price insurance by perfectly estimating the _risk_ or _expected loss_ for each individual customer. They can then pool this risk, take a profit, and everyone wins.
This is what I assumed you meant by "perfectly priced insurance". But I've realized you're talking about the case where insurer has perfect knowledge of the future losses each individual will take. I agree in this case insurance will not make sense. Insurance would be free for most individuals and impossibly expensive for those doomed to catastrophe. (The latter group would be screwed, even if they shared perfect knowledge of the future with the insurer.)
1. If you choose not to take out an insurance policy, and instead save the money yourself, you will not have the lump sum immediately available to cover catastrophe. Whereas as soon as you start paying insurance premiums you are covered.
2. The payout you receive when you make an insurance claim does not just come from the premiums you have personally paid. In fact, for a rare event, the size of the payout likely exceed the total cost of all premiums you could pay over your entire lifetime. This is because the risk is pooled over all customers, and not all customers will make claims.
Neither of the above 2 points become any less relevant as the insurance premiums become more and more accurately priced.
Second of all: when you take out an insurance policy and pay your first premium, you are immediately covered. If you are "self insuring" by setting aside the same amount monthly, it will take you a long time to even begin to accumulate enough funds to cover yourself in case of catastrophe. (And due to the first point, you may never reach that point.)
Finally, yes, of course, there is no need to take out an insurance policy for a risk that you can afford to pay out-of-pocket. It's like how if you have the cash to pay for a house, there is no need to take out a mortgage.
When you buy insurance, you aren't just pooling risk with other customers with the exact same risk profile as yourself. You're pooling with all customers of the company. (Plus all customers of any reinsurance company, etc.)
The point of them trying to quantify risk as accurately as possible is to be able to extract profit while also offering competitive rates.
It's the same as with any other company. They try and operate as efficiently as possible (ie. reduce costs) to try and make more profit, while competing on price.
It would apply the updates optimistically to the client side DB, and the much of code that sat between the database could be shared between client and server. Neat stuff, even if overall Meteor wasn't my favourite thing to work with.